About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Chiu 13, Us 7, Wiener 5, Cohen 3, Kim 3, San Francisco 2, Chu 2, Farrell 2, Tha 1, L.a. City 1, Impugnity 1, Rp & 1, Mar 1, Ethi 1, Col 1, Official Misconduct Asw 1, WantÑi 1, Hadj Jñ 1, Carmen Chu 1, Wiener Willn 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    October 9, 2012
    10:30 - 11:00pm PDT  

10:30pm
violated that trust. his official duties. and i believe the$>ñ4s sheriff is guilty of official misconduct >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisoríyw want to repeat the points that manyrv) of my colleagues have been making tonight. but i did just want to say that""y )z was personally upset to see some members of our public criticize and> berate some of our domestic violence advocates that came out+eoañ today. i think that that was unfortunate and it was incredibly inappropriate. i think!íuyu that people are entitled to their opinions and just as your opinion is respected in this room ióc!<÷ think you should respect those of others. i think domestic violence is anhm0 incredibly sensitive issue. because of that we have to have a higher level ofiykó morality and
10:31pm
ethics whether we have a discussion about what constitutes domestichhx+t violence. but i'm going to speak just to the issue that is before us i think that the board of supervisors is being asked to do four┐q things. one is to address the timing issue. when, atgta commitojaqs official misconduct. the second question is how do we define that&a+by official misconduct. and the third is whether the charges fit that definition,ueñ;y and finally, whether the mayor's office counsel proved bywrú preponderance of evidence that those charges happened. somoyv i'll speak quickly on the timing issue and i think most of us are in agreement here. 2 found to perform official misconduct asw.t0ñ sheriff-elect. and i come to this conclusion because even under the most narrow definition of what
10:32pm
rmy=ñjjr( to office means, i believe that you can commit official misconductgç#w÷ because you can purport to be on the job or purport to use the power of your officex';[ under the color of the law. i think about the last time this came before us -- notpwon÷ before the board of supervisors but the last time it occurred in the city andi@4y that was with ajew. if supervisor+>çda elect had told the store he would help them through a planning processbú$g if they took a bribe before he swore an oath of office i(r think he committed official misuse of conduct because he is using his office under the color of the law so tai he can do one thing or a; i think the timing issue has been well settled here. on the definition ofy[ri official misconduct, and hees where i agree with chairman huh i think wej1jj need to take the most narrow definition of official misconduct asxn1 defined by maz
10:33pm
ol-a and black's law disiksary and that the conduct clause whether it falls below the standard of desen ski must be inwwg2f direct relation and connected to the performance of your official duties or purá,6u purporting to perform your official duties. on the standard, and this isuú0zp where it got stickier for me is where is the standard for each electw7< official. is there one standard or multiple standards and i completely und colleagues came to the conclusion that there are multiple. if i agree withíymh that then i think the sheriff is held to a higher standard that actually there are things that he can:c3d do. but when i look at the simple language, it says a ívz standard and it says one that is impliedly required oì6xw all public officials. and so i think the standard to which we hold the sheriff is a standard that we z ñ to all
10:34pm
elected officials, whether you are supervisor, or districtb attorney or treasurer. sokúo4r on the sustained charges that have come before us, i wasn't convinced, eitherç#ñ(z by the majority or by the mayor's office that counts four and five then fit under this dxdi of official misconduct. i think that ituqó wasn't shown that when the sheriff grabbed his wife, that it was4rú% done under the color of the law or that he used his office or the powers of his officeqñt to commit what i consider to be violence against her. and i want to be very clear about that. i do think that what happened was incredibly#] egregious. where i was then again troubled was withw8m counts two and three which were not the counts brought before us. i agreed with@rkz ethics that count three was not shown by preponderance of evidence, that
10:35pm
whileñ'5o it was plausible that the sheriff tried to dissuade witnesses fromx8vc speaking out against him, there wasn't the evidence or preponderance ofz@p@k evidence to show that that is what he did. where i remain stuck is count4'ky two. and count two referred touh whether he -- what he meant by the statement that he's a powerful-.÷l man. and whether i think by he was purporting to use his powers to threaten child8=ó custody ownership. the motion before the board -- and i think is kind of a lot of -- certain ambiguity here because this is8óh:s the first time that we're hearing this, is the motion before us today is that wefcfañ are sustaining charges counts four and five. i won't be able to support thatg,!yá motion. and i won't because i do take this job very seriously, that weq"p%
10:36pm
are public policy-makers. i think one of the most important things that we can do official misconduct means$ dj4(p&c"p% going -- what official misconduct means as we move forward, and how we interpret/ñy that charter. unfortunately we are here for the first time toç that definition also to interpret it. and i think that we have<"/ to take that power very carefully. and so i wouldn't want0=jv that to be the precedence that we set here tonight. /dj think that as much as possible that we need to have a clearzl7íh definition, not just for elected officials to be able to predict whatsdpg official misconduct means but also for our mayor our ethics commission, and fornjj board of supervisors. i know that i had spokena[<" to our outside counsel about this point, whether you can sustain
10:37pm
charges other than the ones that"ñ"zc were brought before us. and i know that that begs azl9e) question. but that's the position that i sit at today. >> presidenteóx chiu: supervisor chu. thank you. first off i want to thank the president for making your findings today. i think the ethicsfvf6 did do a good job of getting the information together. first off i do want tsgo) i know a lot of folks have spoken blf me my colleagues have spokens points before me so i don't want to go through them but i think it's importante;vuz talk about some of the reactions and comments i heard today just because as i was sitting here anduxinr we talk -- i think everybody talked about how dirp 1q it is, and none of us are pleased to be here, turn. there are people who saidóé ñ domestic violations advocates were trying to break up a
10:38pm
family. i don't think they should be wd5 in that light and i hope this conversation helps us to understand thisbcz÷ better. they are not the enemy here and i want to say that it was person make these comments. i was sad to smñ=w a number of people, after they made their public comments give high fives3dc9s to people in celebration for what they had said because the crowd cheeredf that is wrong. this is not a good event to be at and that is important tor#xhú note. so that being said, the items before us are a number of issues. i wantñi69 to speak on two points. i think supervisor kim had spoken about the question ofso timing and i agree with her comments. i do think that a sheriff-elect is responsiblehy for his or her actions. i don't think that the charter meant to give an individual free pass forr they are sworn into office so that piece to me ish@1tí quite clear. there is a second question about whether or not it constitutes an-q-ma
10:39pm
official misconduct situation and whether or not it impacts an individual's abilities toóba:÷ discharge their duties and in this case i really think that it does as a law enforcementñ7 jzejt)(rp&, but also as a leader of city and what it is that you represent being an official ofcg san francisco. and so because of that i will be voting to sustain the i do think to the family, i do> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i realize/umm actually my final comments were a little confusing so i think i'm generallpp conflicted on this issue but i will be simple about it today. the charges that ethi[cwa commission sustained were counts four and five.
10:40pm
simply the amendment is whether'í+qñ we would sustain those charges. and so as i stated before, i don'ti ó believe that counts four and five fall under the definition of official misconductsm z that i think we should all be under. if the ethics commission found evidence that count two actually hadj jñ been proven by a preponderance of evidence i would be in a different position but being that we had ethics to be the body that looked at the ÷ evidence and judged it before us, i'm going-5wmv to respect that body and the hearing. i was not there for all of those hearings. while ijw-úm the video personally very moving, and i couldn't come to very manyen other conclusions as to what was meant by that statement, today i o11 respect that these are the charges that were brought befores?í us. >> president chiu: is there
10:41pm
any furtherqi + comment? we are not done with the proceedings. any further.écfñ comments from colleagues? supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: i k just have a, i don't know if this is going to affect anyone's vote but i have apqht counsel, just to clarify. are we ablewbz7 to sustain any charge alleged by the mayor, whether or not ther'ñç ethics commission recommended sustaining of that charge? >> yes,pñ.u are able to sustain any chargeúndló?eátááhjt the recommendation of the ethics commission but i think you all need to be voting on the same >> supervisor wiener:j approximate. >> president chiu: any further discussionvs1ñ colleagues? so i understand supervisor wiener has made a motion to/ú l @&c"p% sustain charges. supervisor wiener should we
10:42pm
assume those are for charges four and fiveu2 ÷ or are you also going to amend that? >> supervisor wiener: based on the recommendation of the ethicsñ commission. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener has made the motion to sustain the charges reflecting the decision of the9] super-majority of the agents commission on charges four and five. that motion was secondedn yka by supervisor elsbernd. unless there's further discussion why don't we take roll call vote onu> clerk calvillo: supervisor kim, no.qy xm supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, 4 no. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos,0p8co no. supervisor campos, no. president chiu,]om aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen,col' aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell,ñuf aye. there are seven ayes and four nos 3-6r7b89d given that that motion required:pfxz votes in order to pass the motion is not
10:43pm
approved the the comarges of9yk official misconduct against ross mirkarimi arek])-ñ sustainedxj5cf. idsf>l+sq1q >> president chiu: colleagues, we still have additional business but why don't i suggest we recess4(fq for five minutes and then resume. with that, we'll recess. >>% (the san franciscon[" ez supervisors is in1uxo? recess) jlosf6z6oxçç$a=5fñci:l éfu[gññk
10:44pm
9ñ'p9ñw7 0sx!j ñâb;21 auñuiñc9g@ñhr
10:45pm
10:46pm
10:47pm
10:48pm
10:49pm
10:50pm
10:51pm
10:52pm
>> president chiu: we are back to our 2012. roll÷ for introduction. >> clerk calvillo: firstition supervisor kim. supervisor kim chamber, supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener willn'a$e submit. supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen will submit. supervisor farrell.í.
10:53pm
submit. supervisor carmen chu.k/ñ submit. president chiu will submit.cií roster that concludes roll call for introduction. next> president chiu: let's go to genzsi/$tu!lic comment, two minutes per person. first speaker. >> good afternoon,h3 corporate rape of the public library don't give money to the friendsñy>r÷ of the library don't accept money from the friends of the library. i have a little trepidationxvgd about getting up here and talking about the library today. but of course it's not really.'k9s about the library. it's about what happens to our institutions when they are run
10:54pm
by7-bív our increasingly government by private public-privatei partnership. i can't completely -- or at least0dkse properly talk about what just happened, but i think there's aw price that's relative to that, and that's also relative toiht the public-private partnership which is the loss of credibility that you rvñ see here, you see in many, many places. the public l pepy is just the most extreme example of'%sz that -- of an institution, the purpose of which is to maintainiañ'y(spáj barriers and promote the influence of private money. there is noge5jtá ((r&ity for the public money that is spent on it. there is no accountability for private mone it. there is no accountability for where that private money(bp6[ goes. most of all there is no accountability for the sunshine and ethics violations that allowzmw
10:55pm
them to operate with impugnity. as i said many timeso. cost is the credibility in our society. no onehñ6 believes you. no one believes anything in our society.i@wñ there's a quotation i've used many times. it's not part of mya=ñ graphics presentation. that says tha|t the casualty of being lied to is that you lose faith in thei and isn't thatk our privatized world? the lieszcg>! do cost more than the money. >> president chiu: next speaker pleaseá . >> mr. president -- north amerp'[ñ vacantist i'm glad this body got something right or.iq at least a small portion of it did. that's why i decided to come upit
10:56pm
and speak today. there are issues that have come over -- health issue that have édq up about mike waive. i'm not an attorney. today i'mn proud to say i'm not an attorney. i found some of the arguments tooc0 be extended. it was disturbing. first of all, one of the things thaty about microwave radiation isú ) idea that the federal government can somehow keep a city or any government frasa:@r protecting the health of their people. we cannot regulate the health of our people because of a federal regulation. that's ridiculous. in fact, the federal regulation is much, much more narrow than that. the second thing is the at&t argument that the issue that they're worried about is tissue warming. it's a very typical thing in industry for the industry to throw out a kind of red herring
10:57pm
that throws you off track. the one thing we know about microwaves from experience is it does not generally warm things. the effect on the body is much more precise than that. and it really is out of respect that this body did the right thing tonight that i'm bringing that to your attention tonight. >> president chiu: are there any other speakers? please step up. >> good evening, supervisors. what a night. i feel relieved but not in any way jubilant. i wanted to give you some comment about public comment. i've stood in these chambers a number of times and watched certain supervisors chastise members of the public for how they've given their public comment and i really think it's not appropriate. i think you have to realize that you're on the other side of the divide, where you have unlimited amount of time to talk, whereas a member of the public has two minutes.
10:58pm
you see the clock winding down and you're trying to get in all your points and start talking fast and maybe say things in a way you would not say them if you had more times to say them in a more deliberate way the way you have opportunity to do that. not everyone is a professional speaker like you are. and so i think you have to give the public a little bit of room for being able to say things in a way that maybe you find a little bit harsh or whatever and just recognize that that's what public comment is about. you know the l.a. city council, they actually have a full meeting of the city council three times a week. and they take public comment before the full council after every agenda item. you guys don't take any public comment as a full board, normally. you have it in the committee. so the public really doesn't have much access to all of you, as a full board very often. and, you know, for a city that's
10:59pm
like san francisco supposed to be very democratic your procedures are actually not very democratic at all when you compare them to other major cities. so that's something you also should be aware of. i just really think that it's not a friendly inviting thing to do, to chastise members of the public for how they give you public comment unless they are really really over the top, yelling, saying rude inappropriate things, which i didn't hear anybody doing tonight. i heard them expressing opinions with passion. they didn't necessarily -- i think you have to be respectful of the public. >> president chiu: next speaker please. >> my name is greg cayman. i actually wanted to echo what steve hill said. i may not be as eloquent but i too was pretty taken aback at some of the comments of the supervisors in particular, you know, supervisor from district 4. you

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)